The current battle system mainly calculate everything from Your Rank vs Mob Rank

[Physic]

There was math there? lol

I'm sorry all I saw were some numbers under different circumstances that proved something you asked about AFTER the fact.

You're pretty bad at trolling bro.

heres what you said she prooved

"
Originally Posted by Physic
no one was questioning dlevels effect versus low level mobs, I was questioning two things
If dlevel negates gear/stats
Reika... just fucking demonstrated that... omg.
"

heres what she said in the same post.

"
If you are asking "But reika, if you equip your R43 scepter, doesnt your damage go up?"
why yes the damage does go up, but the point is, I am doing buttloads of damage to these creatures with 0 int, and a r1 weapon
"

sooo wtf are you talking about, she infact proved that dlevel DOES NOT NEGATE THE EFFECT OF GEAR/STATS

are you really seriously this blind.
are you really trying to troll so hard that you cant use your brain.

she proved dlevel has a large effect on your damage, she did not prove that stats/gear do not have an effect, or show what type of effect they have.
you are jumping to conclusions and not using logical reasoning. you can never recreate or understand mathematics if the basic concepts of cause and effect escape you.

you are on the other hand pretty good at trolling though, you are truely a troll pro

[Kurokikaze]

The thing is that you don't.

If you test with the weakest and strongest weapon in the game but your results dont scale normally there is a problem. And this is the case.

Someone else also tested 1 spell with the only thing changing being INT. Results = spells that don't ignore level difference saw no major increase on mobs that mattered.

You guys keep asking for these tests but they've already been done. Log in and do them yourself.

[Shiyo]

On NM's my weathered bow and warped arrows have the exact same acc and do the exact same damage as my crab bow and silver arrows.

[Randis]

Obviously it is because NMs have a very thick skin.
It is like if you step on lego ( the pain will kill you) but if some elephant steps on lego he will not even notice…

[Kaeko]

I'm not sure if I should post here...

I was heavily involved in determining game mechanics in XI, notably the entire enmity system, the Magic Crit formula, interpreting the MACC vs. skill formula, the SCH helix formula, the Modus Veritas formula, the elemental resist formula, the Atonement damage formula, etc. etc. Basically, I lot of what I've said (in some cases unopposed) in XI became dogma. I also did a number of complex "proof of concept" solos outlining various glitches or pathing errors in XI - for example the Bhaflau Remnant solo and essentially the entire strategy known as "pinning" that people still use to solo VNMs in XI.

That's my "resume" (or self congratulatory rubbish, your pick). Now here are my thoughts on this argument regarding dLVL and stat balance:

Take this from someone that did a lot of this in XI and still does a lot of this in real life. There are different levels of testing and validation. Some are more convincing then others, but they are all validation nonetheless. A simple observation is a "low level" of proof, where as a fully controlled test with large trial size has a high level of proof. Not every single test has to be high quality to be useful - aka you don't need a test that gives you a full blown formula to prove a concept.

The advantage of a high quality test or experiment is you can use it to sway people to your conclusions easier. Think of this like a 2 way scale, with each side of the argument being one end. Low quality tests like observations give little weight where as high quality tests with formulas and controls give great weight. And you use the evidence on both sides to ideally reach your conclusion as to which side is correct.

So in this argument regarding dLVL, I see 2 things. First I see some low-level observational evidence that dLVL matters ALOT. Observation with some/minimal numbers involved and no formulae. On the other side I see people arguing against dLVL mattering that much (ie nothing's wrong) using the argument "where's the exact formula?" (ie "only the highest level of evidence will convince me!"). When in doubt, the burden of proof is on the person that makes the claim, so people saying dLVL matters need evidence, but HOW MUCH is really the question. This is an individual thing as to how much evidence you need to see to be convinced.

Now personally I think it's ridiculous that someone would say the formula, whatever it is, isn't skewed towards dLVL. I think the observational evidence is rather overwhelming and I have yet to talk to anyone with at least 1 50 DoW/M job that doesn't feel the same way. And I think if I sat down and talked to someone about it for 10 minutes I could convince 95% of you guys at least. But you will never convince everyone. Some people can't be convinced - you just try your best argument and if they won't believe it then move on. Who knows they may be right. As evidence (or lack there of) on both sides comes to light, the popular belief eventually leans towards the true correct answer anyways.

Basically:
(1) Kurokikaze - if your goal is to convince everyone on this forum dLVL matters too much you will never win.
(2) Physic - believe what you want to believe (I mean this with no condescending tone)
(3) People on the fence about this argument - if you don't think dLVL alone trumps all stats, level to 50 and start fighting random stuff from 1-70 and make up your own mind. You probably won't need to make it to 50 to realize. Hopefully this will convince you. If not, PM me and I'll gladly give you my 10 minute spiel on why I (and many others) feel so confident about this.

Have fun.

[Rentahamster]

Excellent first post. Welcome to the boards, Kaeko! I was wondering if you'd ever show up here, heh heh

[Lerris]

Take this from someone that did a lot of this in XI and still does a lot of this in real life. There are different levels of testing and validation. Some are more convincing then others, but they are all validation nonetheless. A simple observation is a "low level" of proof, where as a fully controlled test with large trial size has a high level of proof. Not every single test has to be high quality to be useful - aka you don't need a test that gives you a full blown formula to prove a concept.

My issue wasn't that I didn't believe it. My issue was with what constitutes proof.
The spreadsheets/experiments Rentahamster linked are at the very least a good start toward proof ( I haven't examined them closely enough yet to judge whether they meet my standard of proof, but it looks like they may, and do not produce a full formula ).

[Physic]

I'm not sure if I should post here...

I was heavily involved in determining game mechanics in XI, notably the entire enmity system, the Magic Crit formula, interpreting the MACC vs. skill formula, the SCH helix formula, the Modus Veritas formula, the elemental resist formula, the Atonement damage formula, etc. etc. Basically, I lot of what I've said (in some cases unopposed) in XI became dogma. I also did a number of complex "proof of concept" solos outlining various glitches or pathing errors in XI - for example the Bhaflau Remnant solo and essentially the entire strategy known as "pinning" that people still use to solo VNMs in XI.

That's my "resume" (or self congratulatory rubbish, your pick). Now here are my thoughts on this argument regarding dLVL and stat balance:

Take this from someone that did a lot of this in XI and still does a lot of this in real life. There are different levels of testing and validation. Some are more convincing then others, but they are all validation nonetheless. A simple observation is a "low level" of proof, where as a fully controlled test with large trial size has a high level of proof. Not every single test has to be high quality to be useful - aka you don't need a test that gives you a full blown formula to prove a concept.

The advantage of a high quality test or experiment is you can use it to sway people to your conclusions easier. Think of this like a 2 way scale, with each side of the argument being one end. Low quality tests like observations give little weight where as high quality tests with formulas and controls give great weight. And you use the evidence on both sides to ideally reach your conclusion as to which side is correct.

So in this argument regarding dLVL, I see 2 things. First I see some low-level observational evidence that dLVL matters ALOT. Observation with some/minimal numbers involved and no formulae. On the other side I see people arguing against dLVL mattering that much (ie nothing's wrong) using the argument "where's the exact formula?" (ie "only the highest level of evidence will convince me!"). When in doubt, the burden of proof is on the person that makes the claim, so people saying dLVL matters need evidence, but HOW MUCH is really the question. This is an individual thing as to how much evidence you need to see to be convinced.

Now personally I think it's ridiculous that someone would say the formula, whatever it is, isn't skewed towards dLVL. I think the observational evidence is rather overwhelming and I have yet to talk to anyone with at least 1 50 DoW/M job that doesn't feel the same way. And I think if I sat down and talked to someone about it for 10 minutes I could convince 95% of you guys at least. But you will never convince everyone. Some people can't be convinced - you just try your best argument and if they won't believe it then move on. Who knows they may be right. As evidence (or lack there of) on both sides comes to light, the popular belief eventually leans towards the true correct answer anyways.

Basically:
(1) Kurokikaze - if your goal is to convince everyone on this forum dLVL matters too much you will never win.
(2) Physic - believe what you want to believe (I mean this with no condescending tone)
(3) People on the fence about this argument - if you don't think dLVL alone trumps all stats, level to 50 and start fighting random stuff from 1-70 and make up your own mind. You probably won't need to make it to 50 to realize. Hopefully this will convince you. If not, PM me and I'll gladly give you my 10 minute spiel on why I (and many others) feel so confident about this.

Have fun.

yall are missing my point. let me make it clear

I know that d level has a drastic effect on your damage/damage taken and maybe to a lesser extent ACC
My question is, what does this mean.
What is the effective effect of dlevel for actual combat.
this means, while i understand that dlevel allows me to kill a rat for 1000 a swing,
1)what is the effect of dlevel in the type of combat we will regularly face. IE how much does dlevel effect your damage in the range of -5+15 levels of combat.
2)IN this range. how are stats/gear effected by the dlevel, IE will 100 attack always make you 100% more effective even if dlevel is reducing the total. will dlevel negate the effects of gear or merely reduce the scale.

right now we have no benefit to fighting mobs any higher than 10 levels above us exp wise and fighting things lower level can only be for farming. I hazard to say SE will only put content at +10 to 15 levels over us that they expect us to fight, so this is where we have to ask how much does dlevel effect us in this range.

Renta provided some information showing the effect is a curve, IE the farther out you get, the more extreme the effects. once again, this suggests that difference between me and sam when we are 1 level apart might be negligible, but when we are 5 levels apart, it is noticeable, is that within the frame of what one should expect from some one 5 levels higher than them.


My point is not that dlevel has no effect, my point is how can you discuss wether the effect is too drastic if you dont know how it effects it, other than it does. I am more concerned with the effects of stats/gear and how dlevel effects them than the fact that gaining a level improves my chances versus monsters.

People point to the NM and say my stats/gear are useless, and point to dlevel. This is inconsistent with all other observed behavior of dlevel. I have fought monsters 30 levels higher than me, and seen a drastic % increase in performace from using the worst to the best gear. people say that the on the NM this is not the case. This suggests that dlevel is not the culprit in this case.

People are mashing dlevel together with the effect or lack of effect of stats, i want the formula to show that this is the case. Because peoples problem here is not usually with dlevel, but with a percieved lack of performance in thier stats for which they blame dlevel. If SE changes dlevel with this in mind, and removes it from the equations, and dlevel WAS NOT the reason their stats were sucking, no one will be happy. this is why its important to figure out what relationship dlevel has in the effective range on stats.


If people want to argue that the level difference should be irrelevant to combat, that is fine, and logical and a issue open to debate. but if you want to say that dlevel is making my stats worthless, you have to show how its effecting your stats, not whether or not it has an effect.

because if the gladiators stats are making him take half the damage i take, and dlevel is a multiplier, it means his stats and skills are just as effective regardless of dlevel.

If you dont understand the precise effect of dlevel on stats, than how can you have a discussion saying dlevel is making my stats worthless.
the fact that a guy 10 levels higher than me wearing the same gear as me can do more damage and take less, makes a lot of sense to me, But i can see why it might be open to debate.

kaeko i would listen to your 10 minute speil, but this forum has no messaging system.

[Teknoman]

As long the new battle system is engaging, fun to use in a party, and takes full advantage of stat allocation, i'll be happy. I mean looking at the way stats effect combat has to be part of designing a new battle system right?

[Physic]

Testing out damage taken by high level monsters, naked and with gear on,
level 42 pug versus level 93 gob
without clothes def 25 4898
with clothes def 302, 2641

this suggests that dlevels effect multiplies the effects of your gear, if this is the case, it means your gear is always important.

probably dlevel is a curve, that multiplies the damage you take or give by a certain value, it operates to have a greater effect the larger the level difference in an exponential manner, it might be it may be calculated after everything else. The key here is it means your gear should still be effective at all levels, if it is not, it is most likely that the monsters stats/gear/traits versus your stats/gear/traits are the issue.